Sagi Shahar wrote:
On Mon, Jul 21, 2025 at 4:51 PM Ira Weiny ira.weiny@intel.com wrote:
On Fri, Jun 13, 2025 at 12:13:32PM -0700, Sagi Shahar wrote:
From: Isaku Yamahata isaku.yamahata@intel.com
[snip]
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/lib/x86/processor.c b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/lib/x86/processor.c index d082d429e127..d9f4ecd6ffbc 100644 --- a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/lib/x86/processor.c +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/lib/x86/processor.c @@ -1166,10 +1166,19 @@ void kvm_get_cpu_address_width(unsigned int *pa_bits, unsigned int *va_bits)
void kvm_init_vm_address_properties(struct kvm_vm *vm) {
uint32_t gpa_bits = kvm_cpu_property(X86_PROPERTY_GUEST_MAX_PHY_ADDR)This fails to compile.
Looks like it's a simple case of missing semicolon at the end of the line, it builds fine if you add it.
Yea.
I can update it in the next version.
When do you expect this to be updated?
It would be nice to see this land soon such that we don't have to keep carrying these patches out of tree.
Would it help if I review this series? I thought it was relatively well reviewed. But given the above simple mistake perhaps it needs more review?
Ira